[1] Whether it is permissible to commission the whole or part of the farming work without using one’s own labor under the Farmland Act (affirmative with qualification), and the meaning of “the person who has obtained the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland under the provisions of Article 8(1) of the Farmland Act by fraudulent or other unlawful means” under Article 61 of the Farmland Act

[2] The case holding that where the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland was issued for the purpose of avoiding the provision that it is impossible to own farmland without any own awareness in the course of purchasing farmland, it constitutes a case where the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland was issued by fraudulent or other unlawful means

[1] In light of the provisions of Articles 2, 6, 8, and 9 of the Farmland Act and the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, it is not permitted to entrust the whole or part of the farming work with the operation of the farming work without using one’s own labor force except for the exceptional cases as stipulated in Article 9 of the Farmland Act, and the person who has obtained the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland under Article 8(1) of the Farmland Act by means of fraudulent or other unlawful methods as stipulated in Article 61 of the Farmland Act refers to the person who obtained the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland by means of fraudulent means or other illegal acts, even though it is impossible to obtain the qualification certificate for

[2] The case holding that where the defendant purchased the entire farmland from the beginning for the purpose of entrusting the local person with the purpose of operating the farmland to the local person without self-reliance, and the defendant obtained the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland by stating false facts in the column for securing the labor force of the agricultural management plan attached to the application form for the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland in order to avoid the provision that ownership of farmland is impossible if he does not own the farmland in this process, it constitutes a case where the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland was issued by fraudulent or other unlawful means as stipulated in

[1] Articles 8 (1), 9, and 61 of the Farmland Act / [2] Articles 8 (1) and 61 of the Farmland Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Jae-in et al.

Jeju District Court Decision 2005No256 Decided October 6, 2005

The appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below determined that the defendant's residence is located in Ycheon-si, Incheon and Seoul; the defendant's wife is operating a kindergarten in Ycheon-si, and the non-indicted 2, who is the defendant's wife, work in Yan-do, work in Yan-do, and the non-indicted 3, who works as a researcher of the Incheon company's located in Y-do, so it was practically impossible for the defendant to form a direct farmer in the farmland of this case. After the purchase of the farmland of this case, the defendant made an agreement with non-indicted 4, etc. on March 2004 to cultivate the farmland of this case and sell the crops harvested in the farm in the future, and if profits accrue, the certain ratio among them shall be fixed to the non-indicted 4, etc.; the defendant is ordinarily engaged in cultivating the farmland of this case, or he purchased 1/2 or more of farming work for the purpose of entrusting the cultivation of the farmland of this case to the local person without his own awareness. In light of the records, the judgment below is justified and there is no violation of law.

2. In light of the provisions of Articles 2, 6, 8, and 9 of the Farmland Act and the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, it is not permitted to entrust the whole or part of farming work without inserting one’s own labor, except for the exceptional cases stipulated in Article 9 of the Farmland Act, and the person who has obtained the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland under the provisions of Article 8(1) of the Farmland Act by means of fraudulent or other unlawful means under the provisions of Article 61 of the Farmland Act means the person who obtained the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland by means of fraudulent means or other acts which are deemed unfair by social norms even though it is impossible to obtain the qualification certificate for acquisition

As seen earlier, the Defendant purchased the entire farmland of this case from the beginning for the purpose of entrusting it to the local person without self-reliance, and in order to avoid the provision that it is impossible to own farmland if it does not own self-defense, it can be recognized that the Defendant obtained the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland by stating false facts in the column for securing labor force attached to the application form for the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland for the purpose of avoiding the provision that it is impossible to own farmland. Thus, this constitutes a case where the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland was issued by means

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation and application of a fraudulent or other unlawful means under Article 61 of the Farmland Act as alleged in the grounds of appeal

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)